Don't play yourself... Anything under 30 fps is going to look like a slideshow no matter if gsync or freesync. Where both technologies come into place is eliminating tearing wether it be 30 fps or 144fps. Synchronizing the frames displayed with frames rendered is where the smoothness comes in. If anything matching GPU with monitor resolution and refresh rate is more important than which technology you are using. Oh and industry standards are always better than proprietary shit!
That is a valid point which I also made. If the FPS really gets that low then no double-frames will help you, you just need to set the settings lower, play another game or buy a new graphics card. :) The better FreeSync monitors do have LFC so that is not an issue at all but if the user needs LFC then the user does something wrong in my opinion as a fellow gamer. No offense to any fellow gamer. Also all good FreeSync monitors support a minimum FPS of 30, I wouldn't buy any which does not.
@Pixel Dust You have obviously not used high refresh rate monitor and do not play games either. Anytime the "Cinematic 24FPS" or the human eye can't see past X FPS argument is brought up it is usually by someone who does not know any better and simply regurgitates whatever they hear/read on the internet.
@Pixel Dust That is nonsense, buddy. You definitely SEE the difference between 24 FPS and 100 FPS, guaranteed. Just because people got used to it by watching television does not mean that you can not see the difference. As a matter of fact, many people who are used to it find it unpleasant to see video with a much higher FPS because it looks different than what they are used to. On the other hand some television-channels broadcast sport-matches at 50/60 FPS. Now, whether 24 FPS looks better or worse for movies and shows, that is subjective. I myself prefer a higher FPS for anything action-related, for drama-effect maybe (and maybe not) a lower FPS can work better, I don't know. You are correct though that for gaming the input-lag is more important than what you see but I definitely also don't like seeing it when the FPS is lower. There was a nice example in a video from Hardware Unboxed where he reviewed that XFX THICC (or however you spell this horrible name) 5700 XT. You saw in some racing-game the FPS suddenly drop to 24/30 FPS, I noticed it from seeing it before I saw the numbers, only then I looked at the numbers because of what I saw. Anyone would see that, you look at it yourself and you will see it.
@Pixel Dust What you call "smooth movement" is not really smooth movement. 24 FPS is enough to have the mind fill in the gaps in between the pictures. When you see somebody move in real life then you see a lot of pictures, when you the same movement with 24 FPS then you see a lot less pictures but just enough in combination with the speed with which the pictures change that you can fill in the missing pictures and perceive it as motion. You can compare it with a 'movie'-book of which you flip the pages, you perceive it as motion but it looks very different from when you see motion in real life. You can also compare it to how the brain only needs around 10 dots to perceive a human walking if those dots move the right way. The brain is very good at filling in but that does not mean that the brain is fooled. The main reason for 24 FPS obviously is that they had technical limitations like limited data-storage. Obviously a higher FPS means that you have to lower the resolution or need a higher bandwidth, in the case of old-fashioned cable-television it can mean that you cut half the channels from that network. These days it would be easily achievable to use 60 FPS or more for movies and tv-shows but it won't happen because all kind of standards get in the way. Maybe once the cable-television disappears we will get that transition. I hope so. @vicdez Yes, industry standards are better than proprietary "shit". Words to my heart as a Linux user and AMD-GPU user.
Thank you. That seems to be a point many people are forgetting. I'm actually looking for a new monitor and am "fine" with paying top dollar for a VERY well rounded monitor but at that price point it's just GSync monitors and that is actually preventing me from making a decision. I don't want to buy $800+ to get a monitor that ONLY works with Nvidia cards then have AMD start to beat Nvidia like AMD is currently beating Intel.
@@duke605 Hahaha. I am suffering that exact problem 11 months after after you wrote this. I have two amazing G-Sync monitors. 30 series is out and we can't find them anywhere. AMD just released their new cards and the appear to kick butt for less money and I will not get the benefits of G-Sync if I go with AMD.....grrr
Why would anyone spend money on a G-Sync monitor? It's more money, and it locks you to Nvidia GPUs. If you buy a good Freesync monitor, you can freely (pun unintended) switch GPU brands and never worry about it.
Instead of buying a monitor with g-sync module for 500$ (for example) you can buy g-sync compatible monitor w\o g-sync module for same 500$. That's the point of this new system - they sell cheaper monitor w\o piece of technology for the same price. OR - you can buy not approved cheaper freesync monitor and hope that it would work properly with your nvidia videocard.
can you please stop the patchy editing? let them speak even if they get off topic! EDIT: just FYI, I like this content a LOT and really support these guys, so nothing negative intended, but just have an issue with the editing.
I would like that, I think, but I can understand why they don't. People click on the video for this one topic, they don't want people to drop off halfway the video because it gets offtopic.
@@woopygoman It also GUARANTEES a higher price when the features are equivalent. There's no valid argument against spending more for a good Freesync monitor (compared to a cheap on with a small refresh range) when the same monitor with G-SYNC costs more.
"Put the legwork in"! Are you serious Brad! Stop spreading misinformation. If your looking at a monitor from Acer, Asus, Aoc etc and they have 2 monitors with the same specs one being freesync and the other being 200 dollars more and g-sync odds are nine out of ten that they use the same exact panel! And it's sooooo hard to tick a checkbox in the Nvidia control panel to enable adaptive sync (freesync)..... C'mon man. You can like what you like and that's fine, but give all the details and stay neutral. Industry standards are always better than proprietary crap. Unless of course you like walled gardens where you over pay for everything then go ahead...SMH
@@saulhernandez7277 it was a S2417DG but I ended up returning it and getting a asus pg279q instead and haven't looked back. The dell was nice but had poor contrast so anything set in space looked awful
You also forgot that g-sync has variable Overdrive , reducing almost all the motion blur resulting in superior quality , and that you have to use Windows 10 for G sync compatible
That is not true, Richy, you don't have to use Windows10 to use FreeSync monitors with an Nvidia card (with FreeSync support of course!), it also works on Linux. www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gsync-compatible-linux&num=1 For those people who stick to Windows, it doesn't matter much whether W7 does or does not support FreeSync monitors for Nvidia, a few months from now W7 will retire and you better don't keep using it! Unless you enjoy malware, keyloggers, trojans, in that case I wish those people the best of luck. ;) Overdrive does not improve the quality, it can reduce ghosting but with too much overdrive you can get pixel-overshoot. www.blurbusters.com/faq/lcd-motion-artifacts/ It is a delicate balance, it depends on the specific screen (not monitor!) and screen alone which refresh rate is the highest which you can use without getting artefacts.
FAKE NEWS! LFC is not a feature of ANY freesync panel because it is done in AMD drivers. If Nvidia doesn't support LFC in their drivers you will not get it. Also, all gaming monitors tell you their range when you buy them, and there was only ONE beta freesync monitor that did not support overdrive, and was fixed in a firmware update. These idiots have not done any research, and are getting their info straight from Nvidia's disinfo campaign. All of which has been fully debunked for years, so it begs the question of how honest they are. Also, gsync is outdated technology built on outdated cable standards, and required an overhaul for 4k. This is part of why it is being dropped. SUPER OLD TECH. It was invented to work on Kepler that didn't have adaptive output through a workaround, and kept around only to make a walled garden. It is not, nor was it ever better than freesync, only the panels themselves were good. Which is a logical fallacy argument. 100% troll disinfo marketing campaign.
I agree, except you attribute it to disingenuous intent, and the more likely reason is simply ignorance. Especially at the end they say "If you can afford G-sync, get it" which is the lazy answer. Then followed by, "If not, still get Freesync, you just have to go on the AMD website, look up the refresh range, set up in the drivers or enable it in the monitor" or whatever... Either put in the extra work yourself, and take the time to learn the difference, or just pay Nvidia their gamer tax for having done it for you.
@@mrlithium69 They're still 100% incorrect even on the stuff you are giving them credit for. You don't have to do Jack researching the panels because all gaming panels fully work ootb. You have to enable one switch in the driver, and I'm sure Nvidia is the same way, because most software is always set to maximum compatibility mode by default. They are repeating Nvidia's marketing FUD based on the fact that all standardized monitors now support freesync because it is literally a requirement in modern monitor specs. Cheap workstation monitors support freesync poorly, and Nvidia uses that as a smear tactic vs their walled garden modules. None of that applies to gaming monitors. If you buy a gaming monitor, you get a gaming monitor. Period. You are also better off reading a proper monitor review site than AMD for info, since panel tech is more important than basic numbers. You want a TN or IPS panel, and not VA in general. Also the latest freesync panel by Asus supports ulmb WITH freesync on, while gsync has historically not done so. Gsync panels were originally higher quality, but now the opposite is true. You can even get OLED TV's that are superior in ever aspect and cheaper than Nvidia's bfgd display. Gsync is now a total joke, and Nvidia has rightly stopped pushing it.
G-Sync just doesn't seem worth it over the cheaper solution allowing you to spend more money on the quality of the monitor or maybe some other PC part. Just ask around or use the youtube monitor recommendations from tech tubers when getting a freesync monitor, it's not that much work. I got a great one thanks to Hardware Unboxed and such and It's great. I'm not tied down to Nvidia anymore. That's another thing they didn't mention that if you get G-Sync that you'd be tied down to Nvidia for the life of that monitor if you want to get the most out of it. Screw that! The new Radeon cards look awesome, and if I wanted to upgrade now I'd probably choose that, I'd have that option.
Yeah I'm wondering the same thing. I have two normal monitors. One for gaming and one for utility that I can use while gaming. Am I going to have to buy 2 new monitors?
Random G sync question here. Is it true you must enabled v sync within the control panel to get the best G sync experience? I thought the whole point of adaptive sync monitors was to replace V sync.
OK, if I'm only going to use a 2070 super Nvidia card and I don't really care about super high FPS(mainly just casual gaming) which is better... LG IPS Ultrawide 34in - Freesync @ 144hz, or Gsync @ 120Hz? Can the 2070 super even push to 144hz on that screen size?? Wouldn't I get a better result using Gsync?
What bugs me about "G-Sync compatible" is that: - Nvidia hijacked the name after having blocked progress for years. I don't know if companies like ASUS have to sign a contract with which Nvidia forces them to call it G-Sync compatible or whether they do it because they think that they will sell more. - The monitors might get more expensive because companies like ASUS and LG pay Nvidia for this branding, just because so many gamers blindly buy Nvidia no matter whether or not it is the better choice for them. - It causes confusion for newbies who have an AMD-card and search for a FreeSync monitor.
@@itsJPhere You are wrong! FreeSync is not the branding of AMD or any other company, it is an open standard. Nvidia stole the branding FreeSync from AMD like Nvidia tried to steal the branding from MSI, Gigabyte and ASUS with GPP. I suspect that this is Nvidia getting another over dead bodies marketing 'win'. We make the companies call FreeSync G-Sync compatible and we suggest that it is inferior to G-Sync by calling it G-Sync compatible. Let's start with that it is NOT G-Sync compatible, FreeSync has nothing to do with G-Sync, there is no FPGA-module with proprietary Nvidia crap on it, consequently FreeSync monitors can by definition not be compatible with G-Sync. G-Sync is that FPGA-module with Nvidia their software on it, nothing more and nothing less.
@@itsJPhere They could simply have used the industry standard name "VESA adaptive sync". That would still have been a bit dishonest against AMD but at least it's a name that both should be able to handle...
@@Luredreier That is correct but it also is trivial given that Nvidia would technically not use FreeSync but use their own implementation of VESA Adaptive Sync, they would write their own little piece of code for it (which allegedly is rather simple).
Note of caution! Be careful what you buy when running Nvidia cards on AMDFreesync monitors. I'm running an iiyama Black Hawk 75hz AMDFreesyc monitor with Nvidia graphics, however it doesnt sync well with my geforce card, it suffers black screens and still tears if refresh isn't capped to 73 fps.
Got a question (bear with my ignorance)- I have an MSI Stealth GS75 laptop with an Nvidia Geforce RTX 2070 MaxQ gpu which I want to connect to a Dell S2716D 27” 1440p 144hz G-sync monitor. The laptop is awesome but does not have a DisplayPort out- it does have hdmi and thunder port 3 out. Is the best way to connect this monitor through thunderport to DisplayPort on the monitor? If so, where do I find a true thunderport 3 to DisplayPort cable? Seems most of what’s out there is usb 3.1 (usbC) to DisplayPort.
Come on guys, anyone who doesn't know that just isn't trying. This question is so 2016. :) No, G-Sync is not better, there just is more variation for FreeSync, anyone who does his homework can buy any of these. Next. You can quite easily find the minimal refresh-rate for FreeSync and whether or not it support LFC if you search for a few minutes. Regardless, if you don't get >30 FPS for the 1% FPS then you have the wrong graphics card or you set the settings too high, if the minimal refresh rate is not 30 then I am not interested in buying that monitor. Simple as that for me.
So Im torn between a larger 120hz ips 4ms gsync .. Alienware’s AW3418DW specifically and a 27” 165 hz 1ms tn panel. Asus ROG PG27VQ They are writhing 50$ of each other. I haven’t used a panel like either of these before. I have no idea which would be better. I play most fps games and do some video editing but not much. Any opinions would be appreciated.
27" is a great size Anything above 140HZ is fairly unnecessary as most people lack hardware to push games that fast with exceptions to things like Overwatch, CSGO etc . IPS looks great and all, but TBH if you are 90% FPS gaming, or you play alot of multiplayer games, you really don't need it. IPS is more so for dedicated content creators (TN or VA is fine) You definitely want a monitor with some SYNC however the real thing is if you want simple out the box use and don't mind paying $50+ for it get G-Sync, if you want a lower price but same performance look around for a Freesync monitor that hits your range (45hz-140hz). As for LFC & HDR, LFC is great and a amazing tech, but most people don't drop below 30 FPS but it's nice to have it, so don't stress it too much. HDR is also Beautiful, however the tech isn't ready, most games and content don't even support HDR yet and won't for years to come, the industry standards are also fairly lenient rn, so I would wait for this tech to develop more. Honestly I wouldn't get either of those monitors, but up to you, my opinion for you is. Get a 1080p or 1440p 27" display, that's TN, has good color gamut and brightness levels. At least 120 hz or higher. With display port input, and also supports Freesync or G-sync, and has a true 1-3 ms response time.
I bought a GSync monitor, and I am super unhappy with it. The colors are not stable, quality is not really better than a simple vsync (as long as your game doesn't lag badly), and it has a lots of freeze issues with multi-monitors. Next time I will go with Freesync, which is simple, but does the job. Instead of GSync which does way too much, but badly, and costs an arm. I contacted NVidia's support many times and they were unable to help me (did a tons of diagnostic and they fixed a few bugs in their driver, but a lot remains)
When the PC gaming standard is 60FPS and you can only afford a 60-75Hz panel, then it's very simple to keep in the freesync range. LFC doesn't matter unless you are potato gaming (i.e. using onboard graphics), your rig should be able to get 1080p 60FPS with a budget GPU, if you can afford a gsync monitor you can afford something better than a potato gpu, if not then neither technology applies. Those low range freesync monitors are usually 48-75Hz 1080p and if you have the equivalent of an RX 570 or better then the range below 48 FPS shouldn't even come into play as it's quite easy to set your target frame rate to 75Hz or higher with the games quality settings. If you are running at 75Hz, then you shouldn't dip below 48FPS, my experience with budget freesync monitors and lower end GPU's has been quite good and I can't remember a time being out of freesync range ever (even with my ancient r7 260X). By setting the game's quality setting to average above 70, it'll be rare to dip out of freesync range. Freesync gave variable refresh rate to the masses and it only takes a few rules for setting up your game to get the most out of it. Personally I flatlined the FPS to the monitors max refresh rate (75Hz) using frtc or chill minmax 75 and when it did dip it still stayed above 60. I now have a 144Hz freesync 2 monitor with LFC and I still run higher than 75Hz and LFC would only be useful for a 30FPS console which I don't have. The cost of a freesync monitor and an RX 570 = an equivalent resolution gsync monitor with no gpu. LFC doesn't come into play as the money spent on gsync would get you the GPU to get 60FPS+
LFC works great in some situations. I have a monitor that only officially supports Freesync 30 - 90Hz, but the panel supports refresh at 144Hz. I can manually shift the Freesync range up to 60 - 144Hz, and I can see frames get doubled up when performance dips below 60 fps. So it's not only for potatoes. Granted, my situation is kind of an edge case.
@@hughjazz44 I hope you didn't pay too much for that crappy implementation of freesync. If you are dipping below 60, then wouldn't the 31-110 range mod be better?
You won't at higher frame rates. Try a game where you're pushing your graphics card down to a lower frame rate. Unless that monitor only does freesync at higher frame rates... If it does then you might notice a *tiny* latency improvement with freesync...
XAN TON XAN TON 27.0 Inches 27" Dell 27 Gaming Monitor: S2719DGF 27" 2560 x 1440 at 155Hz (Overclock with DP) 2560 x 1440 at 144Hz (Native with HDMI 2/ DP) 2560 x 1440 at 60Hz (Native with HDMI1) there are go smart @$$
@@jeffs7348 It's freesync range is down to 40 Hz from what I can tell. If that's correct (and if Nvidias drivers are using the full range and supporting LFC) then you should be getting the biggest difference in experience at around 40-80 Hz. If you're sensitive to tearing then perhaps higher then that. If your GPU is doing more then 144 Hz though then you'll get better results with either fast sync or enhanced sync depending on your GPU...
@@jeffs7348 It's freesync range is down to 40 Hz from what I can tell. If that's correct (and if Nvidias drivers are using the full range and supporting LFC) then you should be getting the biggest difference in experience at around 40-80 Hz. If you're sensitive to tearing then perhaps higher then that. If your GPU is doing more then 144 Hz though then you'll get better results with either fast sync or enhanced sync depending on your GPU...
Brad is either being incredibly disingenuous or simply doesn't know what he's talking about. There are no upper or lower limits to Freesync refresh rates other than what an individual monitor supports. This whole "50-75 Hz" argument is a complete fabrication. As long as the lower refresh rate is at least half of your maximum, you get LFC and won't experience any stuttering below the minimum refresh rate, so don't buy a cheap (note: I didn't say inexpensive) monitor and you won't have ANY of the issues brought up about Freesync.
Yeah... don't buy G-sync as that pretty well forces you into buying Nvidia cards going forward. G-Sync is not a guaranteed good experience. My "G-Sync Compatible" monitor (the AOC AG241QX) has much better reviews than it's G-Sync variant. A head to head test was actually done and it was much better. Just do a bit of research and get a good Freesync option.
Yeah this is important and they left it out. It's such a big deal too. Instead of spending so much extra money on "G-Sync" you can get a comparable or better monitor for the same budget or spend the extra on something else, and you aren't locked into a particular GPU brand. How did they forget to talk about that?
Just my opinion here but I see a lot of people saying “would never get a G-SYNC monitor because it locks me into Nvidia” but in my experience I don’t see myself trying an AMD card again anyways. I am very happy with my 2080 and AMD does not offer much that can compete with Nvidia cards. The RX 5700 XT is decent but the reference card is terrible, runs hot and loud. So to me being “locked” into Nvidia is a non issue, they simply make the more powerful, and power efficient cards
once Nvidia made g-sync compatible with freesync I sold my 144 Hertz g-sync TN panel and bought a viotech VA panel 144 Hertz freesync and had $70 left in my pocket
All Gsync monitors have ultra motion blur (ULMB) feature it is a good adition and useful in some cases. For example usted in conjunction with rivatuner scanline sync you have a kind of crt image without stutter or tearing if you can maintain the frames, it is a really good solution. Gsync works in all refresh rate from 1 to max refresh rate too. I have another one gsync compatible monitor and works great too!
Long story short: Cheap FreeSync monitors are not as good as Expensive G-Sync monitors Expensive FreeSync monitors are almost always as good as their even more expensive G-Sync counterparts I think the way information is presented in this video is misleading. You make it sound like FreeSync, the technology itself is bad when in practice G-Sync and FreeSync are both identical. There are some bad FreeSync monitors but that is due to them 1) being extremely cheap 2) FreeSync was just an extra. If you are looking to buy a good gaming monitor you can find a FreeSync variant that is just as good as the G-Sync variant for $200 USD or more off the price. Is G-Sync worth it? No, it you look at monitor reviews like those from TFTCentral then you will know the refresh rate window. In fact some FreeSync monitors have a 20 FPS minimum range, which is better then G-Sync's minimum of 40. Both support LFC but the FreeSync has the potential to go below 30 FPS without resorting to LFC like Nvidia. In addition, it's not even mentioned as a negative that G-Sync monitors can only use G-Sync with Nvidia cards. You are locked into Nvidia's ecosystem, which is a huge negative.
What's the point of having a 20fps min range and not using LFC if when LFC kicks in it makes your frame fit two times on a 40hz setting? Shouldn't two images on 40hz look the same as one image in 20hz?
I found the G-Sync compatible monitors are still great... at least my Acer XG270HU which is a relatively cheap 27" 1440p monitor seems to do well with my 2070 super
I keep reading and listening to such videos.. i simply cannot find an answer to the question: is it worth it for 200-300 euros more than a non g-sync? what kind of monitor refresh rates would benefit from it for which kind of FPS..would be nice if someone could actually answer this.
Im using that same laptop Brad has and I just got a cheaper acer 144hz freesync curved monitor from prime day. I can only connect through hdmi so im assuming I cant get any of the freesync stuff.
Here are my requirements: large (40in+) 4k monitor for productivity, but can do at least 120Hz in 1080p for gaming, and with adaptive sync. The only option if I don't want to spend over $1000 is a 55in RU8000 from Samsung. The 49in nano cell from LG comes close, better size for me and a little cheaper, but no freesync. Why doesn't someone make a 40+ in 4k computer monitor for $500 with freesync?
My opinion, I have a gsync monitor and also a freesync monitor 144hz that is not gsync compatible. I use a GTX 980 on the freesync monitor, use DP cable and I barely notice the difference on my gsync monitor that has a GTX 1660 Super. Yes, in many cases GSYNC technology shows it worth and use for gaming. But if you are an FPS gamer and you have all of these GSYNC and Freesync features BUT you suck at FPS shooters... dont waste your money on those. An adaptive sync monitor that will work with your GPU is cost effective and it suits almost all users (gamers, business workers and designers). To me, I shat $599 on a QHD gaming monitor with GYSNC.. vs a $240 FHD monitor with adaptive sync and I am yet still to notice frame stuttering.
I turned on freesyn on my msi 144hz monitor with my gtx1080, works okay with lower frame rates 50-80 but anything over 100 frames is a horrible tearing mess.
3:46 This should be the top-line. G-sync is much better but costs $100-200 more in hardware. Freesync is super unregulated, intends to fix the same things G-sync does, but does it fundamentally differently and less well while introducing negatives like lag etc.
I have got a question too for Brad, assuming that he also follows the monitors closely given how closely that is related to the graphics cards. What is going on with the LG UltraGear 27GL850, it has been listed since July but we still can't buy one. This is a monitor which I am waiting for assuming that the glow problem is not worse than on the existing IPS-monitors.
I just got a AOC G2460PF screen and gsync works amazingly well with it! I didnt have to enable freesync in the osd just turn gsync on bam its just amazing coming from a 60hz 4k screen. :)
I was surprised when I saw date on this video. I thought its couple years old, because what these "experts" says doesnt realy aply for todays market....Im I the only one who cant listen the same shit and same expresion like they are some rockstars? 4 videos about different topics and it was all the same.
I have an Nvidia card which supposedly support g-sync (GTX 970M) and a g-sync monitor but I cannot use it, because it's in a laptop. Someone thought it would be a smart idea to let Intel integrated gpu to handle everything, i.e. EVERYTHING, display/monitor related except actual computation in games. The most annoying thing is not that there is no settings at all in Nvidia control panel but it's constant occasional gpu switching from GTX970M to Intel which causes loosing display for a few seconds until Intel integrated gpu redo hand-shake with the monitor through display port. If this happens during playing games it also usually sets the game in windowed mode.
I think depends so much on your gpu. If an rx580 or 1660, async range matters, cause some games (ubisoft) drops to 30 and a lot of fresync monitor only work above 48. I think 30 is the minimal and if your fps is dropping below fuck you. Change your gpu.
pfff, so much weird details... how the heck i need to find a monitor what i need, about 30-32 inche, uhd bluray support and prob above 75 hz , i dont know i think i need just to buy one if it looks good for the price and hope it can want i want. So much tests are based on gaming, if you not game your out.
Update from October 2020: Don't buy into the G-Sync nonsense. You can't find Nvidia 30 series cards anywhere. AMD just caught up to Nvidia's 30 series performance at a lower price point.
My LG24GL600F freesync monitor, my gpu 1660 can do gsync with it. I'm really happy it's feel smoother, but i dont use it for online fps game because its increase input lag. It just not worthed spend much money on gsync, better upgrade gpu and buy freesync monitor.
@@Ineedcoffee-n4j And that is why they are forced to have g-sync compatible standard right? Like it or not, G-Sync as a standard is irrelevant... AMD won
@@HardiEmrieRosly AMD won, Gsync is dead , omg everybody there not making gsync monitors anymore, wat do I do now , wait there still making and selling new gsync monitors , nvidia sells the most gpus , guess its not dead and AMD clearly hasnt won lol
Simple answer no. Freesync is the best because it works everywhere and is a bit cheaper . It is like gddr and hbm, while hbm was expensive and not good and then amd came to gddr too.
Amd Freesync/Vegas adaptive/vsync more standard than nvidia gsync. 2020...nvidia is now also freesync. Freesync with radeon card or nvidia 1080 ti gsync/freesync with freesync or gsync monitor cost more than $99 lcd monitor. My new asus 1440p 27 inch freesync 144hz and asus 1080p 25 inch gsync 180/240 hz 1ms cost me almost $1k for both. Gigabyte 1080ti 11gb xtreme overclocked gpu $750 before double to $1200/1400 because trump trade war.
This video is so important because lot of people thinks that freesync equals gsync, it can be true but not always. Sincerely I would never buy a freesync that works in the 50/75 range only. There are games where I like to push hard my 2080ti in 4k with everything on and playing in the 40/50 range is a no problem. With those games I like to have gsync at 40/50fps.
A Big reason to get a g-sync monitor over a free sync is that a g-sync monitor has something called variable overdrive which adjust the pixel overdrive on the fly to both reduce input latency and blurring by a good bit. G-sync is quite a bit better in my opinion also the color on the g-sync monitors is precalibrated at the factory to an exact standard 100% RGB for a 8bit panel and 100% HDR for 10bit and up the also do not allow the use of frc aka Frame rate control which allows them to use a lower bit color to fake a higher bit one 6bit to fake 8.
I'm a very experienced PC Builder and appreciate your content but you need to make it absolutely clear here for the noobs that g-sync is basically only if you have Nvidia cards and freesync if you have AMD Radeon cards because they are proprietary. Now I know there is g-sync with certain freesync monitors but let's not confuse the noobs so don't mention it but you didn't make it crystal clear that g-sync is friend video and Precinct is 4 Radeon.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
Amazing that they did all that talking and still managed to say completely nothing.
god bless there words!!!!
I was about to say, what did I just listen to for 5 mins?
Don't play yourself... Anything under 30 fps is going to look like a slideshow no matter if gsync or freesync. Where both technologies come into place is eliminating tearing wether it be 30 fps or 144fps. Synchronizing the frames displayed with frames rendered is where the smoothness comes in. If anything matching GPU with monitor resolution and refresh rate is more important than which technology you are using.
Oh and industry standards are always better than proprietary shit!
That is a valid point which I also made. If the FPS really gets that low then no double-frames will help you, you just need to set the settings lower, play another game or buy a new graphics card. :)
The better FreeSync monitors do have LFC so that is not an issue at all but if the user needs LFC then the user does something wrong in my opinion as a fellow gamer. No offense to any fellow gamer. Also all good FreeSync monitors support a minimum FPS of 30, I wouldn't buy any which does not.
You hit the nail on the head ....those are facts. Seem they don't know what they speak of 30fps feels like crap.
@Pixel Dust You have obviously not used high refresh rate monitor and do not play games either. Anytime the "Cinematic 24FPS" or the human eye can't see past X FPS argument is brought up it is usually by someone who does not know any better and simply regurgitates whatever they hear/read on the internet.
@Pixel Dust
That is nonsense, buddy. You definitely SEE the difference between 24 FPS and 100 FPS, guaranteed. Just because people got used to it by watching television does not mean that you can not see the difference. As a matter of fact, many people who are used to it find it unpleasant to see video with a much higher FPS because it looks different than what they are used to. On the other hand some television-channels broadcast sport-matches at 50/60 FPS.
Now, whether 24 FPS looks better or worse for movies and shows, that is subjective. I myself prefer a higher FPS for anything action-related, for drama-effect maybe (and maybe not) a lower FPS can work better, I don't know. You are correct though that for gaming the input-lag is more important than what you see but I definitely also don't like seeing it when the FPS is lower. There was a nice example in a video from Hardware Unboxed where he reviewed that XFX THICC (or however you spell this horrible name) 5700 XT. You saw in some racing-game the FPS suddenly drop to 24/30 FPS, I noticed it from seeing it before I saw the numbers, only then I looked at the numbers because of what I saw. Anyone would see that, you look at it yourself and you will see it.
@Pixel Dust
What you call "smooth movement" is not really smooth movement. 24 FPS is enough to have the mind fill in the gaps in between the pictures. When you see somebody move in real life then you see a lot of pictures, when you the same movement with 24 FPS then you see a lot less pictures but just enough in combination with the speed with which the pictures change that you can fill in the missing pictures and perceive it as motion. You can compare it with a 'movie'-book of which you flip the pages, you perceive it as motion but it looks very different from when you see motion in real life. You can also compare it to how the brain only needs around 10 dots to perceive a human walking if those dots move the right way. The brain is very good at filling in but that does not mean that the brain is fooled.
The main reason for 24 FPS obviously is that they had technical limitations like limited data-storage. Obviously a higher FPS means that you have to lower the resolution or need a higher bandwidth, in the case of old-fashioned cable-television it can mean that you cut half the channels from that network. These days it would be easily achievable to use 60 FPS or more for movies and tv-shows but it won't happen because all kind of standards get in the way. Maybe once the cable-television disappears we will get that transition. I hope so.
@vicdez
Yes, industry standards are better than proprietary "shit". Words to my heart as a Linux user and AMD-GPU user.
Freesync with LFC is preferable to GSync because it doesn't lock you into Nvidia cards for the life of the monitor.
Thank you. That seems to be a point many people are forgetting. I'm actually looking for a new monitor and am "fine" with paying top dollar for a VERY well rounded monitor but at that price point it's just GSync monitors and that is actually preventing me from making a decision. I don't want to buy $800+ to get a monitor that ONLY works with Nvidia cards then have AMD start to beat Nvidia like AMD is currently beating Intel.
@@duke605 Hahaha. I am suffering that exact problem 11 months after after you wrote this. I have two amazing G-Sync monitors. 30 series is out and we can't find them anywhere. AMD just released their new cards and the appear to kick butt for less money and I will not get the benefits of G-Sync if I go with AMD.....grrr
@@11BravoMike lol ... AMD sucks
Why would anyone spend money on a G-Sync monitor? It's more money, and it locks you to Nvidia GPUs. If you buy a good Freesync monitor, you can freely (pun unintended) switch GPU brands and never worry about it.
The motive is the talking point of the video
Instead of buying a monitor with g-sync module for 500$ (for example) you can buy g-sync compatible monitor w\o g-sync module for same 500$. That's the point of this new system - they sell cheaper monitor w\o piece of technology for the same price. OR - you can buy not approved cheaper freesync monitor and hope that it would work properly with your nvidia videocard.
Some FreeSync computers are more now..
I doubt that g-sync compatible freesync works as well as native gsync with nvidia gpus, judging by the effective refresh ranges alone.
can you please stop the patchy editing? let them speak even if they get off topic! EDIT: just FYI, I like this content a LOT and really support these guys, so nothing negative intended, but just have an issue with the editing.
I would like that, I think, but I can understand why they don't. People click on the video for this one topic, they don't want people to drop off halfway the video because it gets offtopic.
Correction. Freesync 2 monitors have LFC and so called, less than HDR. 1 to 144Hz+ over HDMI.
you wont here them say this on here no money to be made telling the truth.
Vanilla Freesync monitors also offer LFC as long as the minimum refresh rate is at least half the maximum.
Just because Freesync 2 allows it doesn't mean all monitors have it. But regular G-Sync GUARANTEES the range of 0-max refresh rate.
@@woopygoman It also GUARANTEES a higher price when the features are equivalent. There's no valid argument against spending more for a good Freesync monitor (compared to a cheap on with a small refresh range) when the same monitor with G-SYNC costs more.
@@woopygoman friend of mine has gsync. he said his fps get slashed in half and its utter garbage
"Put the legwork in"! Are you serious Brad! Stop spreading misinformation. If your looking at a monitor from Acer, Asus, Aoc etc and they have 2 monitors with the same specs one being freesync and the other being 200 dollars more and g-sync odds are nine out of ten that they use the same exact panel!
And it's sooooo hard to tick a checkbox in the Nvidia control panel to enable adaptive sync (freesync)..... C'mon man. You can like what you like and that's fine, but give all the details and stay neutral.
Industry standards are always better than proprietary crap. Unless of course you like walled gardens where you over pay for everything then go ahead...SMH
Boost this, because this is it.
Just got a 1440p, 144hz, G-Sync monitor from Dell. Doom at 140 fps with G-Sync is so smooth it's surreal.
What model dell?
@@saulhernandez7277 it was a S2417DG but I ended up returning it and getting a asus pg279q instead and haven't looked back. The dell was nice but had poor contrast so anything set in space looked awful
You also forgot that g-sync has variable Overdrive , reducing almost all the motion blur resulting in superior quality , and that you have to use Windows 10 for G sync compatible
That is not true, Richy, you don't have to use Windows10 to use FreeSync monitors with an Nvidia card (with FreeSync support of course!), it also works on Linux.
www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gsync-compatible-linux&num=1
For those people who stick to Windows, it doesn't matter much whether W7 does or does not support FreeSync monitors for Nvidia, a few months from now W7 will retire and you better don't keep using it! Unless you enjoy malware, keyloggers, trojans, in that case I wish those people the best of luck. ;)
Overdrive does not improve the quality, it can reduce ghosting but with too much overdrive you can get pixel-overshoot. www.blurbusters.com/faq/lcd-motion-artifacts/
It is a delicate balance, it depends on the specific screen (not monitor!) and screen alone which refresh rate is the highest which you can use without getting artefacts.
I'm not paying for no G-sync. I rather put that extra money on a better GPU and not be locked down to Nvidia.
I love the range of frame rates that gsync covers on my PG279Q. The panel itself is gorgeous too
FAKE NEWS! LFC is not a feature of ANY freesync panel because it is done in AMD drivers. If Nvidia doesn't support LFC in their drivers you will not get it.
Also, all gaming monitors tell you their range when you buy them, and there was only ONE beta freesync monitor that did not support overdrive, and was fixed in a firmware update.
These idiots have not done any research, and are getting their info straight from Nvidia's disinfo campaign. All of which has been fully debunked for years, so it begs the question of how honest they are.
Also, gsync is outdated technology built on outdated cable standards, and required an overhaul for 4k. This is part of why it is being dropped. SUPER OLD TECH. It was invented to work on Kepler that didn't have adaptive output through a workaround, and kept around only to make a walled garden. It is not, nor was it ever better than freesync, only the panels themselves were good. Which is a logical fallacy argument. 100% troll disinfo marketing campaign.
I agree, except you attribute it to disingenuous intent, and the more likely reason is simply ignorance. Especially at the end they say "If you can afford G-sync, get it" which is the lazy answer. Then followed by, "If not, still get Freesync, you just have to go on the AMD website, look up the refresh range, set up in the drivers or enable it in the monitor" or whatever... Either put in the extra work yourself, and take the time to learn the difference, or just pay Nvidia their gamer tax for having done it for you.
@@mrlithium69
They're still 100% incorrect even on the stuff you are giving them credit for. You don't have to do Jack researching the panels because all gaming panels fully work ootb. You have to enable one switch in the driver, and I'm sure Nvidia is the same way, because most software is always set to maximum compatibility mode by default. They are repeating Nvidia's marketing FUD based on the fact that all standardized monitors now support freesync because it is literally a requirement in modern monitor specs. Cheap workstation monitors support freesync poorly, and Nvidia uses that as a smear tactic vs their walled garden modules. None of that applies to gaming monitors. If you buy a gaming monitor, you get a gaming monitor. Period.
You are also better off reading a proper monitor review site than AMD for info, since panel tech is more important than basic numbers. You want a TN or IPS panel, and not VA in general. Also the latest freesync panel by Asus supports ulmb WITH freesync on, while gsync has historically not done so. Gsync panels were originally higher quality, but now the opposite is true. You can even get OLED TV's that are superior in ever aspect and cheaper than Nvidia's bfgd display. Gsync is now a total joke, and Nvidia has rightly stopped pushing it.
@@JohnDoe-ip3oq What's the problem with VA in variable refresh rate?
@@masteraxe2 Pixel inversion, ghosthing...somethings like that.
G-Sync just doesn't seem worth it over the cheaper solution allowing you to spend more money on the quality of the monitor or maybe some other PC part. Just ask around or use the youtube monitor recommendations from tech tubers when getting a freesync monitor, it's not that much work. I got a great one thanks to Hardware Unboxed and such and It's great. I'm not tied down to Nvidia anymore.
That's another thing they didn't mention that if you get G-Sync that you'd be tied down to Nvidia for the life of that monitor if you want to get the most out of it. Screw that! The new Radeon cards look awesome, and if I wanted to upgrade now I'd probably choose that, I'd have that option.
If i have a rx 5700 xt and I buy a g sync monitor will my rx 5700 xt still work on that monitor?
Can you mix Gsync and Freesync in a multi-monitor setup?
Yeah I'm wondering the same thing. I have two normal monitors. One for gaming and one for utility that I can use while gaming.
Am I going to have to buy 2 new monitors?
@@pcworld Did you find out the answer to this?
my laptop uses NVidia GPU and i want to buy a budget monitor 144hz 1ms but it is AMD Freesync not GSync Compartible. Does it work properly?
Random G sync question here. Is it true you must enabled v sync within the control panel to get the best G sync experience? I thought the whole point of adaptive sync monitors was to replace V sync.
Mark Pate no I always disable vsync
OK, if I'm only going to use a 2070 super Nvidia card and I don't really care about super high FPS(mainly just casual gaming) which is better... LG IPS Ultrawide 34in - Freesync @ 144hz, or Gsync @ 120Hz? Can the 2070 super even push to 144hz on that screen size?? Wouldn't I get a better result using Gsync?
so is better to go on a g sync monitor vs a g sync compatible?
What bugs me about "G-Sync compatible" is that:
- Nvidia hijacked the name after having blocked progress for years. I don't know if companies like ASUS have to sign a contract with which Nvidia forces them to call it G-Sync compatible or whether they do it because they think that they will sell more.
- The monitors might get more expensive because companies like ASUS and LG pay Nvidia for this branding, just because so many gamers blindly buy Nvidia no matter whether or not it is the better choice for them.
- It causes confusion for newbies who have an AMD-card and search for a FreeSync monitor.
It does make sense for Nvidia to use its own branding, no company would or could use branding from somebody else just like that.
@@itsJPhere
You are wrong! FreeSync is not the branding of AMD or any other company, it is an open standard. Nvidia stole the branding FreeSync from AMD like Nvidia tried to steal the branding from MSI, Gigabyte and ASUS with GPP.
I suspect that this is Nvidia getting another over dead bodies marketing 'win'. We make the companies call FreeSync G-Sync compatible and we suggest that it is inferior to G-Sync by calling it G-Sync compatible. Let's start with that it is NOT G-Sync compatible, FreeSync has nothing to do with G-Sync, there is no FPGA-module with proprietary Nvidia crap on it, consequently FreeSync monitors can by definition not be compatible with G-Sync. G-Sync is that FPGA-module with Nvidia their software on it, nothing more and nothing less.
@@itsJPhere They could simply have used the industry standard name "VESA adaptive sync".
That would still have been a bit dishonest against AMD but at least it's a name that both should be able to handle...
@@peterjansen4826 Not quite, Freesync is simply the name of AMDs implementation of "VESA Adaptive sync".
@@Luredreier
That is correct but it also is trivial given that Nvidia would technically not use FreeSync but use their own implementation of VESA Adaptive Sync, they would write their own little piece of code for it (which allegedly is rather simple).
Note of caution! Be careful what you buy when running Nvidia cards on AMDFreesync monitors.
I'm running an iiyama Black Hawk 75hz AMDFreesyc monitor with Nvidia graphics, however it doesnt sync well with my geforce card, it suffers black screens and still tears if refresh isn't capped to 73 fps.
Think the driver update by Nvidia to support freesync only works with Nvidia 10 series gpu's and above
Samsung u28d590d freesync monitor with an 16inch MacBook pro. Will I benefit from that as far as performance.
Got a question (bear with my ignorance)- I have an MSI Stealth GS75 laptop with an Nvidia Geforce RTX 2070 MaxQ gpu which I want to connect to a Dell S2716D 27” 1440p 144hz G-sync monitor. The laptop is awesome but does not have a DisplayPort out- it does have hdmi and thunder port 3 out. Is the best way to connect this monitor through thunderport to DisplayPort on the monitor? If so, where do I find a true thunderport 3 to DisplayPort cable? Seems most of what’s out there is usb 3.1 (usbC) to DisplayPort.
Very informtive. Thanks
Come on guys, anyone who doesn't know that just isn't trying. This question is so 2016. :)
No, G-Sync is not better, there just is more variation for FreeSync, anyone who does his homework can buy any of these. Next. You can quite easily find the minimal refresh-rate for FreeSync and whether or not it support LFC if you search for a few minutes. Regardless, if you don't get >30 FPS for the 1% FPS then you have the wrong graphics card or you set the settings too high, if the minimal refresh rate is not 30 then I am not interested in buying that monitor. Simple as that for me.
More and more televisions supports industrial standard VRR.
Though it is only via HDMI so Nvidia is out of the picture when using living room setup.
So Im torn between a larger 120hz ips 4ms gsync .. Alienware’s AW3418DW specifically and a 27” 165 hz 1ms tn panel. Asus ROG PG27VQ They are writhing 50$ of each other. I haven’t used a panel like either of these before. I have no idea which would be better. I play most fps games and do some video editing but not much. Any opinions would be appreciated.
27" is a great size
Anything above 140HZ is fairly unnecessary as most people lack hardware to push games that fast with exceptions to things like Overwatch, CSGO etc .
IPS looks great and all, but TBH if you are 90% FPS gaming, or you play alot of multiplayer games, you really don't need it. IPS is more so for dedicated content creators (TN or VA is fine)
You definitely want a monitor with some SYNC however the real thing is if you want simple out the box use and don't mind paying $50+ for it get G-Sync, if you want a lower price but same performance look around for a Freesync monitor that hits your range (45hz-140hz).
As for LFC & HDR, LFC is great and a amazing tech, but most people don't drop below 30 FPS but it's nice to have it, so don't stress it too much.
HDR is also Beautiful, however the tech isn't ready, most games and content don't even support HDR yet and won't for years to come, the industry standards are also fairly lenient rn, so I would wait for this tech to develop more.
Honestly I wouldn't get either of those monitors, but up to you, my opinion for you is.
Get a 1080p or 1440p 27" display, that's TN, has good color gamut and brightness levels. At least 120 hz or higher. With display port input, and also supports Freesync or G-sync, and has a true 1-3 ms response time.
i have the PG258 with G-sync. being a 1ms 240hz 1080p its so smooth matched with a 2070.
I bought a GSync monitor, and I am super unhappy with it. The colors are not stable, quality is not really better than a simple vsync (as long as your game doesn't lag badly), and it has a lots of freeze issues with multi-monitors. Next time I will go with Freesync, which is simple, but does the job. Instead of GSync which does way too much, but badly, and costs an arm. I contacted NVidia's support many times and they were unable to help me (did a tons of diagnostic and they fixed a few bugs in their driver, but a lot remains)
Ozone Grif what monitor did you buy and what GPU are you using? I have found that G-SYNC is overall a better experience than FreeSync
When the PC gaming standard is 60FPS and you can only afford a 60-75Hz panel, then it's very simple to keep in the freesync range.
LFC doesn't matter unless you are potato gaming (i.e. using onboard graphics), your rig should be able to get 1080p 60FPS with a budget GPU, if you can afford a gsync monitor you can afford something better than a potato gpu, if not then neither technology applies.
Those low range freesync monitors are usually 48-75Hz 1080p and if you have the equivalent of an RX 570 or better then the range below 48 FPS shouldn't even come into play as it's quite easy to set your target frame rate to 75Hz or higher with the games quality settings.
If you are running at 75Hz, then you shouldn't dip below 48FPS, my experience with budget freesync monitors and lower end GPU's has been quite good and I can't remember a time being out of freesync range ever (even with my ancient r7 260X). By setting the game's quality setting to average above 70, it'll be rare to dip out of freesync range.
Freesync gave variable refresh rate to the masses and it only takes a few rules for setting up your game to get the most out of it. Personally I flatlined the FPS to the monitors max refresh rate (75Hz) using frtc or chill minmax 75 and when it did dip it still stayed above 60. I now have a 144Hz freesync 2 monitor with LFC and I still run higher than 75Hz and LFC would only be useful for a 30FPS console which I don't have.
The cost of a freesync monitor and an RX 570 = an equivalent resolution gsync monitor with no gpu. LFC doesn't come into play as the money spent on gsync would get you the GPU to get 60FPS+
LFC works great in some situations. I have a monitor that only officially supports Freesync 30 - 90Hz, but the panel supports refresh at 144Hz. I can manually shift the Freesync range up to 60 - 144Hz, and I can see frames get doubled up when performance dips below 60 fps. So it's not only for potatoes. Granted, my situation is kind of an edge case.
@@hughjazz44
I hope you didn't pay too much for that crappy implementation of freesync.
If you are dipping below 60, then wouldn't the 31-110 range mod be better?
My dell monitor 1440p 144mhz with 155mhz boost was added to the list and to be honest I can’t tell the difference with it on or off.
144 000 000 Hz monitor. that's a lot of hertz.
You won't at higher frame rates.
Try a game where you're pushing your graphics card down to a lower frame rate.
Unless that monitor only does freesync at higher frame rates...
If it does then you might notice a *tiny* latency improvement with freesync...
XAN TON XAN TON
27.0 Inches
27"
Dell 27 Gaming Monitor: S2719DGF 27"
2560 x 1440 at 155Hz (Overclock with DP)
2560 x 1440 at 144Hz (Native with HDMI 2/ DP)
2560 x 1440 at 60Hz (Native with HDMI1) there are go smart @$$
@@jeffs7348 It's freesync range is down to 40 Hz from what I can tell.
If that's correct (and if Nvidias drivers are using the full range and supporting LFC) then you should be getting the biggest difference in experience at around 40-80 Hz.
If you're sensitive to tearing then perhaps higher then that.
If your GPU is doing more then 144 Hz though then you'll get better results with either fast sync or enhanced sync depending on your GPU...
@@jeffs7348 It's freesync range is down to 40 Hz from what I can tell.
If that's correct (and if Nvidias drivers are using the full range and supporting LFC) then you should be getting the biggest difference in experience at around 40-80 Hz.
If you're sensitive to tearing then perhaps higher then that.
If your GPU is doing more then 144 Hz though then you'll get better results with either fast sync or enhanced sync depending on your GPU...
Brad is either being incredibly disingenuous or simply doesn't know what he's talking about. There are no upper or lower limits to Freesync refresh rates other than what an individual monitor supports. This whole "50-75 Hz" argument is a complete fabrication. As long as the lower refresh rate is at least half of your maximum, you get LFC and won't experience any stuttering below the minimum refresh rate, so don't buy a cheap (note: I didn't say inexpensive) monitor and you won't have ANY of the issues brought up about Freesync.
Freesynce only works with Nvidia 10 series gpu's and above.
And pretty much all AMD GPUs that's halfway new...
Yeah... don't buy G-sync as that pretty well forces you into buying Nvidia cards going forward. G-Sync is not a guaranteed good experience. My "G-Sync Compatible" monitor (the AOC AG241QX) has much better reviews than it's G-Sync variant. A head to head test was actually done and it was much better. Just do a bit of research and get a good Freesync option.
Yeah this is important and they left it out. It's such a big deal too. Instead of spending so much extra money on "G-Sync" you can get a comparable or better monitor for the same budget or spend the extra on something else, and you aren't locked into a particular GPU brand. How did they forget to talk about that?
Just my opinion here but I see a lot of people saying “would never get a G-SYNC monitor because it locks me into Nvidia” but in my experience I don’t see myself trying an AMD card again anyways. I am very happy with my 2080 and AMD does not offer much that can compete with Nvidia cards. The RX 5700 XT is decent but the reference card is terrible, runs hot and loud. So to me being “locked” into Nvidia is a non issue, they simply make the more powerful, and power efficient cards
once Nvidia made g-sync compatible with freesync I sold my 144 Hertz g-sync TN panel and bought a viotech VA panel 144 Hertz freesync and had $70 left in my pocket
All Gsync monitors have ultra motion blur (ULMB) feature it is a good adition and useful in some cases. For example usted in conjunction with rivatuner scanline sync you have a kind of crt image without stutter or tearing if you can maintain the frames, it is a really good solution. Gsync works in all refresh rate from 1 to max refresh rate too. I have another one gsync compatible monitor and works great too!
can someone tell me a summary of this?
Long story short: Cheap FreeSync monitors are not as good as Expensive G-Sync monitors
Expensive FreeSync monitors are almost always as good as their even more
expensive G-Sync counterparts
I think the way information is presented in this video is misleading. You make it sound like FreeSync, the technology itself is bad when in practice G-Sync and FreeSync are both identical. There are some bad FreeSync monitors but that is due to them 1) being extremely cheap 2) FreeSync was just an extra. If you are looking to buy a good gaming monitor you can find a FreeSync variant that is just as good as the G-Sync variant for $200 USD or more off the price. Is G-Sync worth it? No, it you look at monitor reviews like those from TFTCentral then you will know the refresh rate window. In fact some FreeSync monitors have a 20 FPS minimum range, which is better then G-Sync's minimum of 40. Both support LFC but the FreeSync has the potential to go below 30 FPS without resorting to LFC like Nvidia.
In addition, it's not even mentioned as a negative that G-Sync monitors can only use G-Sync with Nvidia cards. You are locked into Nvidia's ecosystem, which is a huge negative.
What's the point of having a 20fps min range and not using LFC if when LFC kicks in it makes your frame fit two times on a 40hz setting? Shouldn't two images on 40hz look the same as one image in 20hz?
I found the G-Sync compatible monitors are still great... at least my Acer XG270HU which is a relatively cheap 27" 1440p monitor seems to do well with my 2070 super
I keep reading and listening to such videos.. i simply cannot find an answer to the question: is it worth it for 200-300 euros more than a non g-sync? what kind of monitor refresh rates would benefit from it for which kind of FPS..would be nice if someone could actually answer this.
just get 60 framed one and yea g or AMD ver is worth it
Im using that same laptop Brad has and I just got a cheaper acer 144hz freesync curved monitor from prime day. I can only connect through hdmi so im assuming I cant get any of the freesync stuff.
Here are my requirements: large (40in+) 4k monitor for productivity, but can do at least 120Hz in 1080p for gaming, and with adaptive sync. The only option if I don't want to spend over $1000 is a 55in RU8000 from Samsung. The 49in nano cell from LG comes close, better size for me and a little cheaper, but no freesync.
Why doesn't someone make a 40+ in 4k computer monitor for $500 with freesync?
My opinion, I have a gsync monitor and also a freesync monitor 144hz that is not gsync compatible. I use a GTX 980 on the freesync monitor, use DP cable and I barely notice the difference on my gsync monitor that has a GTX 1660 Super. Yes, in many cases GSYNC technology shows it worth and use for gaming. But if you are an FPS gamer and you have all of these GSYNC and Freesync features BUT you suck at FPS shooters... dont waste your money on those. An adaptive sync monitor that will work with your GPU is cost effective and it suits almost all users (gamers, business workers and designers). To me, I shat $599 on a QHD gaming monitor with GYSNC.. vs a $240 FHD monitor with adaptive sync and I am yet still to notice frame stuttering.
I turned on freesyn on my msi 144hz monitor with my gtx1080, works okay with lower frame rates 50-80 but anything over 100 frames is a horrible tearing mess.
3:46 This should be the top-line. G-sync is much better but costs $100-200 more in hardware. Freesync is super unregulated, intends to fix the same things G-sync does, but does it fundamentally differently and less well while introducing negatives like lag etc.
I have got a question too for Brad, assuming that he also follows the monitors closely given how closely that is related to the graphics cards. What is going on with the LG UltraGear 27GL850, it has been listed since July but we still can't buy one. This is a monitor which I am waiting for assuming that the glow problem is not worse than on the existing IPS-monitors.
I just got a AOC G2460PF screen and gsync works amazingly well with it! I didnt have to enable freesync in the osd just turn gsync on bam its just amazing coming from a 60hz 4k screen. :)
I was surprised when I saw date on this video. I thought its couple years old, because what these "experts" says doesnt realy aply for todays market....Im I the only one who cant listen the same shit and same expresion like they are some rockstars? 4 videos about different topics and it was all the same.
I have an Nvidia card which supposedly support g-sync (GTX 970M) and a g-sync monitor but I cannot use it, because it's in a laptop. Someone thought it would be a smart idea to let Intel integrated gpu to handle everything, i.e. EVERYTHING, display/monitor related except actual computation in games. The most annoying thing is not that there is no settings at all in Nvidia control panel but it's constant occasional gpu switching from GTX970M to Intel which causes loosing display for a few seconds until Intel integrated gpu redo hand-shake with the monitor through display port. If this happens during playing games it also usually sets the game in windowed mode.
G-sync only works on Nvidia 10xx series or higher.
@@axelmontano Nope. I can't post links here but in Nvidia product page it clearly says GTX 970M also supports g-sync.
As far as I'm concerned an adaptive sync monitor is pointless if it doesn't go down to 30hz.
would my samsung q7fn tv which has freesync work with nvidia cards?
Does your TV have a Display Port input? If not, you're out of luck since Nvidia only support adaptive frame rate through DP and not HDMI...
www.amd.com/en/products/freesync-monitors
Freesync list. For those wondering
What about Gsync Module vs Gsync Compatible?
That is just gsync module vs freesync. Pretty sure Gsync compatible is freesync... unless I'm wrong, in which case you should just ignore me.
I think depends so much on your gpu. If an rx580 or 1660, async range matters, cause some games (ubisoft) drops to 30 and a lot of fresync monitor only work above 48. I think 30 is the minimal and if your fps is dropping below fuck you. Change your gpu.
pfff, so much weird details... how the heck i need to find a monitor what i need, about 30-32 inche, uhd bluray support and prob above 75 hz , i dont know i think i need just to buy one if it looks good for the price and hope it can want i want. So much tests are based on gaming, if you not game your out.
Update from October 2020: Don't buy into the G-Sync nonsense.
You can't find Nvidia 30 series cards anywhere.
AMD just caught up to Nvidia's 30 series performance at a lower price point.
I say go with what you can afford , ive seen gsync monitors on sale as low as $290 -350 and free sync compatible at $200
U sure gsync goes all the way down to 1 hz?
I thought that under 30 fps gsync stops...
Pick up the Acer xfa240 if you're looking for GSync at a decent price
or up your budget and get a benq ex3501r
My LG24GL600F freesync monitor, my gpu 1660 can do gsync with it. I'm really happy it's feel smoother, but i dont use it for online fps game because its increase input lag.
It just not worthed spend much money on gsync, better upgrade gpu and buy freesync monitor.
ngreedia
Love your channel. Keep it up.
Gordon your workshop ROCKS!!!
GSync is pretty much dead at this point.
how do you figure? it still blows freesync out of the water
Cory Bryan Most of the time G-Sync is $200-400 premium over its FreeSync counterpart. It’s just not worth it.
@@Ineedcoffee-n4j And that is why they are forced to have g-sync compatible standard right? Like it or not, G-Sync as a standard is irrelevant... AMD won
@@HardiEmrieRosly AMD won, Gsync is dead , omg everybody there not making gsync monitors anymore, wat do I do now , wait there still making and selling new gsync monitors , nvidia sells the most gpus , guess its not dead and AMD clearly hasnt won lol
@@SouthwestGaming LOL.. yup.. they sell the most GPUs yet they were forced to adopt freesync... so much for being so alive and well...
Simple answer no. Freesync is the best because it works everywhere and is a bit cheaper . It is like gddr and hbm, while hbm was expensive and not good and then amd came to gddr too.
My Acer G-sync monitor only supports Nvidia cards sadly.
Amd Freesync/Vegas adaptive/vsync more standard than nvidia gsync. 2020...nvidia is now also freesync. Freesync with radeon card or nvidia 1080 ti gsync/freesync with freesync or gsync monitor cost more than $99 lcd monitor. My new asus 1440p 27 inch freesync 144hz and asus 1080p 25 inch gsync 180/240 hz 1ms cost me almost $1k for both. Gigabyte 1080ti 11gb xtreme overclocked gpu $750 before double to $1200/1400 because trump trade war.
Experts? Fools!
blablabla show the difference!
This video is so important because lot of people thinks that freesync equals gsync, it can be true but not always. Sincerely I would never buy a freesync that works in the 50/75 range only. There are games where I like to push hard my 2080ti in 4k with everything on and playing in the 40/50 range is a no problem. With those games I like to have gsync at 40/50fps.
A pretty slideshow 🤣
NO BULLSHIT ALL ANSWERS!
you really should talk about 1ms 4ms and 5ms feature in this video , whatever make a separate video now , its important ,btw thanks for this one .
Vague
I have a pixio pix 329. I have a great range of free sync
I prefer the overall range of g sync
No worth it to everyone, get freesync
LG 32GK650G-B 32
love it sofar,
just no hdr
Thanks
Love these quick hit discussions.
I have monitor with AMD freesync but nvidia graphics card
Then you are a lucky boy unless you bought the monitor after Nvidia started to support FreeSync and you bought it because of that. ;)
Don't forget Nvidia driver update only supports 10 series Nvidia gpu's and above.
I bought freesync monitor and gsync enabled too with displayport. Worked smoothly on 1660
@@nindajuka8427 what monitor you have worked so good with your 1660?
Do not have any flicker on nvidia card?
@@riannair7101 LG 24GL600F no flickering or black strobing
Both add latency there is test for both ,it's not good for fps game
I click on these videos for the intro riff alone.
if you think that's crazy go watch some of Gordon's old Hardcore Hardware videos if you want to hear some riffs....
A Big reason to get a g-sync monitor over a free sync is that a g-sync monitor has something called variable overdrive which adjust the pixel overdrive on the fly to both reduce input latency and blurring by a good bit. G-sync is quite a bit better in my opinion also the color on the g-sync monitors is precalibrated at the factory to an exact standard 100% RGB for a 8bit panel and 100% HDR for 10bit and up the also do not allow the use of frc aka Frame rate control which allows them to use a lower bit color to fake a higher bit one 6bit to fake 8.
no
50-75hz saves you from 90% of the framedrops if you tune the graphic settings to run at 75fps. I say the extra 10% is not worth the price difference.
@@rschana100 Ah, okay. I didn't know that. In the early days gsync had more HZ-range than freesync. Guess that's history.
A friend of mine. his fps tanks when he turned his gsync on.
its so broken it isnt worth talking about
what makes him an gpu expert ???
he went to gpu school of course
I'm a very experienced PC Builder and appreciate your content but you need to make it absolutely clear here for the noobs that g-sync is basically only if you have Nvidia cards and freesync if you have AMD Radeon cards because they are proprietary. Now I know there is g-sync with certain freesync monitors but let's not confuse the noobs so don't mention it but you didn't make it crystal clear that g-sync is friend video and Precinct is 4 Radeon.
triangle in shirt? illuminati spotted
Nvidia dont add freeync if it isnt enabled by default.
its hilarious. Gsync lost the battle plain and simple.
only a fool buys a gsync display
Yes it is. Freesync has caveats. Gsync doesn't. You get what you pay for.
🤯